Home

Please support mflenses.com if you need any graphic related work order it from us, click on above banner to order!
SearchSearch MemberlistMemberlist RegisterRegister ProfileProfile Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages Log inLog in

Short 100-200mm FL lenses with tripod collar?
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Wed Mar 30, 2022 7:33 pm    Post subject: Short 100-200mm FL lenses with tripod collar? Reply with quote
Am currently looking for a non-rotating focusing helicoid to do some 1:1+ macro work (enlarger lenses) where a bellows is too heavy, and I need a tripod socket on the lens so the camera can really be 'locked' together on a plate.

The obvious and cheap choice is a gutted Vivitar/Kenko macro focusing teleconverter, having to be used on a mirrorless adapter with a tripod socket though.

I have a feeling the total length of that would come very similar to some of the 200mm lenses I'm seeing with tripod rings, which in M42 mount can be fitted straight onto my mirrorless camera with a "thin" M42 adapter. Whether there's advantage or not, it's just another option that's equally cheap.

Even if that's the inspiration, I still want to ask: What's the shortest lens you know that has a tripod collar?

Currently the shortest I can find is a Soligor 200mm f/3.5 Tele-Auto, although in some pictures it looks alot longer than it does (illusion?).




Looking oddly longer:

[/b]


PostPosted: Wed Mar 30, 2022 8:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Assuming you really mean the shortest helicoid I know that has a tripod socket (i.e. after stripping all the optics out, and non-rotating tripod socket is acceptable); the Minolta TELE ROKKOR-QD 300mm f/5.6 helicoid is pretty short once you strip all the optics out. SR mount on the back with only 4 screws, easily changed. As a preset it has no aperture control mechanics to be removed, just a very simple and smooth helicoid, fairly light-weight too.

Problem is it is not very common, so a bit of a shame to do surgery to, and likely not the cheapest option. (hint: you're not getting mine Wink )





PostPosted: Wed Mar 30, 2022 8:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Leitz Elmar 135mm/F4, 120mm total length, built in tripod mount and excellent picture quality:



Example pictures:



100% crop:



PostPosted: Wed Mar 30, 2022 9:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
RokkorDoctor wrote:
Assuming you really mean the shortest helicoid I know that has a tripod socket (i.e. after stripping all the optics out, and non-rotating tripod socket is acceptable); the Minolta TELE ROKKOR-QD 300mm f/5.6 helicoid is pretty short once you strip all the optics out. SR mount on the back with only 4 screws, easily changed. As a preset it has no aperture control mechanics to be removed, just a very simple and smooth helicoid, fairly light-weight too.

Problem is it is not very common, so a bit of a shame to do surgery to, and likely not the cheapest option. (hint: you're not getting mine Wink )


Isn't this a fair bit longer than the Soligor pictured? or am I missing something where it comes in half? Either way wasn't aware they did a preset lens, which is interesting to know about...


tb_a wrote:
Leitz Elmar 135mm/F4, 120mm total length, built in tripod mount and excellent picture quality:


Example pictures:



This looks like a winner- must've been under my nose as last week I looked into the Elmar 90mm f4 with it's unscrewable optical block + helicoid. If only I looked up the 135mm options...

Unfortunately I only need the tube, not the optics, and both are Leica so there's a tax on them... not quite the £10 for the Soligor. But still a winner on the terms I introduced the thread with!

https://youtu.be/3jGseMcEdoY?t=225 for proof of non-rotating front


PostPosted: Wed Mar 30, 2022 10:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Obviously I don't understand exactly what you need.

I'm doing macro shootings as well using enlarger lenses such as the Rodenstock Apo-Rodagon 50/2.8 and I'm using M42 macro focusing helicoids which are available in different flexible extension sizes, added with M42 distance ring if needed.
This setup is quite light hence it's more than OK to fix the camera on the tripod; i.e. no lens support is needed.

That's the setup for apprx. 1:1 macro:



PostPosted: Thu Mar 31, 2022 1:31 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Well, it's probably not the shortest, but it does have a tripod collar, at least. The Nikon 200mm f/4 macro. Mine's an AIs version. it's actually rather long, but apart from its length, it has everything the OP was looking for.


PostPosted: Thu Mar 31, 2022 9:35 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
eggplant wrote:
RokkorDoctor wrote:
Assuming you really mean the shortest helicoid I know that has a tripod socket (i.e. after stripping all the optics out, and non-rotating tripod socket is acceptable); the Minolta TELE ROKKOR-QD 300mm f/5.6 helicoid is pretty short once you strip all the optics out. SR mount on the back with only 4 screws, easily changed. As a preset it has no aperture control mechanics to be removed, just a very simple and smooth helicoid, fairly light-weight too.

Problem is it is not very common, so a bit of a shame to do surgery to, and likely not the cheapest option. (hint: you're not getting mine Wink )


Isn't this a fair bit longer than the Soligor pictured? or am I missing something where it comes in half? Either way wasn't aware they did a preset lens, which is interesting to know about...


The entire optical block can be taken out, after which you end up with with just the helicoid mechanism, which ends pretty much where the focus grip ends. So yes, just under half the length of what you see in the photos.

Minolta made a few preset lenses for the SR mount:

- W.ROKKOR-QE 35mm f/4 - 1960, SR mount, fairly common
- MACRO ROKKOR-QF 50mm f/3.5 - 1961, M39 mount + SR adapter, rare
- ROKKOR-TC 100mm f/4 - 1959/1960 (two versions), SR mount, moderately rare
- TELE ROKKOR-PG 135mm f/2.8 - 1958, SR mount, very rare, very short production run
- ROKKOR-TC 135mm f/4 - 1960, SR mount, very common
- ROKKOR-TC 135mm f/4 BELLOWS - 1961, like above without focus helicoid, M39 mount + SR adapter, reasonably common
- TELE ROKKOR-QE 200mm f/5 - 1964, SR mount, fairly rare
- TELE ROKKOR-GF 250mm f/4 - 1959, SR mount, extremely rare
- TELE ROKKOR-TD 300mm f/4.5 - 1960, SR mount, not very common
- TELE ROKKOR-QD 300mm f/4.5 - 1965, SR mount, not very common
- TELE ROKKOR-QD 300mm f/5.6 - 1965, SR mount, not very common
- TELE ROKKOR-TD 600mm f/5.6 - 1959, SR mount, extremely rare
- ZOOM ROKKOR 100-200mm f/5.6 - 1965, SR mount, not too common

Reading back your original inspiration for looking at this, I assume you realise that near 1:1 magnification a focus helicoid is predominantly going to impact magnification, but will do little for focusing? (near 1:1 magnification focusing is usually done by moving the whole setup, i.e. on a separate focus rail, or by moving the camera on a bellows with adjustable back standard).

EDIT: added 3 more SR preset lenses.

You are aware that some compact lightweight bellows do exist? (scroll to the last 3 images in my post):

http://forum.mflenses.com/minolta-rokkor-tc-135mm-f-4-bellows-and-extension-bellows-t83583.html


PostPosted: Thu Mar 31, 2022 11:28 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
RokkorDoctor wrote:


The entire optical block can be taken out, after which you end up with with just the helicoid mechanism, which ends pretty much where the focus grip ends. So yes, just under half the length of what you see in the photos.

Minolta made a few preset lenses for the SR mount:



Oh- interesting, I see. I shall keep that in mind and do a bit more research on those preset lenses.


RokkorDoctor wrote:

Reading back your original inspiration for looking at this, I assume you realise that near 1:1 magnification a focus helicoid is predominantly going to impact magnification, but will do little for focusing? (near 1:1 magnification focusing is usually done by moving the whole setup, i.e. on a separate focus rail, or by moving the camera on a bellows with adjustable back standard).

EDIT: added 3 more SR preset lenses.


Ahhh, I see- I had experienced that in my brief time doing 1:1 work, but could never see why, usually messing with the lens focus and then loosening the arca swiss clamp to move the camera plate up/down until decent focus was reached.

That explains why alot of bellows actually come with a focusing rail.....(!!!)

This does reframe my search abit. However, the issue with weight of bellows that include focusing rails still remains. The issue is the weight spread over large object + control knobs far from center of tripod. Meaning at high magnifications I get loads of camera shake trying to focus.

I know I can get a more robust tripod or tripod head, but I've had equal success just reducing the weight of the focusing setup.

For context- the camera is pointing down at a document, but I can't use a copy stand for various reasons.

RokkorDoctor wrote:

You are aware that some compact lightweight bellows do exist? (scroll to the last 3 images in my post):

http://forum.mflenses.com/minolta-rokkor-tc-135mm-f-4-bellows-and-extension-bellows-t83583.html


I am aware of the Rokkor compact bellows, but the lack of a control knob for focusing and no tripod attachment warded me away.

I did actually go looking for a more compact set of bellows- particularly ones where the lens mounts are close to the rail - and came back with this older Novoflex model:



However, there is no focusing rack, and as you've pointed out it would be important to have one. And I'm not sure how much lighter it is.


PostPosted: Thu Mar 31, 2022 12:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Those preset lenses reminded me of my own 500mm f8 'wundertute' that seperates into three parts - front element, focuser, rear group tube -

Now I have alot of step rings, I discovered that the thread on the rear tube is perfect match for M48- extremely promising as it has a tripod shoe, but I will need a slimmer extension ring. And to remove the glass.

Can anyone else who owns one of these measure the diameter of the rear threads for me?

I just want to confirm it isn't an outlier of an older model.


PostPosted: Thu Mar 31, 2022 1:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Pictures worth a thousand words...

This setup is giving me 2:1 magnification, with a 50mm enlarger lens on APS-C which is necessary for some documents but abit too much for everything else. I'm sure I could reduce the number of step rings to back it down.

The elements were of course removed before doing this.









PostPosted: Thu Mar 31, 2022 2:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
eggplant wrote:
Pictures worth a thousand words...

This setup is giving me 2:1 magnification, with a 50mm enlarger lens on APS-C which is necessary for some documents but abit too much for everything else. I'm sure I could reduce the number of step rings to back it down.



Why for god's sake don't you just take a good bellows such this one from Canon (here shown with the rare Canon 20mm lens for extreme enlargements up to 20:1)?



Similar bellows do exist from all major OEM such as Konica, Minolta, Nikon, Olympus, Pentax and Zeiss/Yashica. I have the corresponding models from Konica and Minolta as well (the Minolta can even be tilted), and they all are extremely well made. I got my Konica Auto bellows including slide copier and the Konica 4/105mm Macro lens for about CHF (USD/EUR) 80.--, and that's certainly worth it.

S


PostPosted: Thu Mar 31, 2022 2:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
eggplant wrote:
This does reframe my search abit. However, the issue with weight of bellows that include focusing rails still remains. The issue is the weight spread over large object + control knobs far from center of tripod. Meaning at high magnifications I get loads of camera shake trying to focus.

I know I can get a more robust tripod or tripod head, but I've had equal success just reducing the weight of the focusing setup.

For context- the camera is pointing down at a document, but I can't use a copy stand for various reasons.


I see. Shooting at high magnifications does require sturdy supports. Even if you can limit shake during the exposure by using flash & high shutter speeds, you will still need a sturdy setup when focusing manually, as you have found out.

Sturdy supports come at a price unfortunately. It is hard to give meaningful advice without seeing the problem, but very likely some Novoflex support accessories or even a Manfrotto Super Clamp might help you out here. All pricey unfortunately.

eggplant wrote:
I did actually go looking for a more compact set of bellows- particularly ones where the lens mounts are close to the rail - and came back with this older Novoflex model:



However, there is no focusing rack, and as you've pointed out it would be important to have one. And I'm not sure how much lighter it is.


Oh, yes, Novoflex made lots of bellows, and they still do. Very well made, which at least for their new products is also very much reflected in their prices.


PostPosted: Thu Mar 31, 2022 3:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
stevemark wrote:
eggplant wrote:
Pictures worth a thousand words...

This setup is giving me 2:1 magnification, with a 50mm enlarger lens on APS-C which is necessary for some documents but abit too much for everything else. I'm sure I could reduce the number of step rings to back it down.



Why for god's sake don't you just take a good bellows such this one from Canon (here shown with the rare Canon 20mm lens for extreme enlargements up to 20:1)?



Similar bellows do exist from all major OEM such as Konica, Minolta, Nikon, Olympus, Pentax and Zeiss/Yashica. I have the corresponding models from Konica and Minolta as well (the Minolta can even be tilted), and they all are extremely well made. I got my Konica Auto bellows including slide copier and the Konica 4/105mm Macro lens for about CHF (USD/EUR) 80.--, and that's certainly worth it.

S


I agree at face value that would make sense Stephan, especially the ones where you can remove the support platter and place it right on top of the document, but we don't really know the particulars here.

This may be a large oversize document of which only a small section in the middle needs to be reproduced 1:1. Perhaps it is a sensitive document where physical contact or folding is prohibited. The fact that the OP says use of a copy stand is not feasible for various reasons makes me suspect that a dedicated bellows macro stand isn't an option here either.

The OP will have to be more specific if he/she needs better advice re. a suitable setup.


PostPosted: Thu Mar 31, 2022 3:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
RokkorDoctor wrote:
stevemark wrote:
eggplant wrote:
Pictures worth a thousand words...

This setup is giving me 2:1 magnification, with a 50mm enlarger lens on APS-C which is necessary for some documents but abit too much for everything else. I'm sure I could reduce the number of step rings to back it down.



Why for god's sake don't you just take a good bellows such this one from Canon (here shown with the rare Canon 20mm lens for extreme enlargements up to 20:1)?


Similar bellows do exist from all major OEM such as Konica, Minolta, Nikon, Olympus, Pentax and Zeiss/Yashica. I have the corresponding models from Konica and Minolta as well (the Minolta can even be tilted), and they all are extremely well made. I got my Konica Auto bellows including slide copier and the Konica 4/105mm Macro lens for about CHF (USD/EUR) 80.--, and that's certainly worth it.

S



This may be a large oversize document of which only a small section in the middle needs to be reproduced 1:1. Perhaps it is a sensitive document where physical contact or folding is prohibited.



Correct- this is exactly what I'm having to do, reproducing diagrams smaller than an SD card, which can be in the middle of an A4+ sized page.

At the moment I use a tripod whose legs can fold flat, with the centre column reversed, so I can move documents freely below the camera:



RokkorDoctor wrote:

The OP will have to be more specific if he/she needs better advice re. a suitable setup.


OK- I have had issues in the past where the tripod plate is only screwed into the base of the camera.

The long lens extension becomes a big lever with which to wiggle the camera with, left to right.

If you have a tripod collar somewhere in that long extension, you can have the camera and this screwed to one plate. Vastly reduced wiggle.

Also, the ball head of the tripod to clamp as close as possible to the lens end, rather than the camera, with a sufficiently long plate.

Obviously the answer is buy an EF to mirrorless adapter with a tripod screw, and then use a gutted Vivitar macro focusing teleconverter.

But those mirrorless adapters don't have the tripod screw too far forward. Or, if I want a less intense magnification, I would have to slim down this part but give up the tripod screw.

I'm probably over thinking the weight issue here, but I've seen how little weight it takes for the lens to sag on E mount- it's a f**** pain.

You might think a lens support would do + strapping the lens to it, but I'm skeptical it would kill wiggle.

Basically I just want a tripod ring / screw immediately behind the helicoid.
Just give me a short m42 extension tube with a tripod screw in it, etc.
Then the lens would be supported right where it needs to be and I would be happy to vary magnification with extension tubes.

Something like a Leica OUBIO for Visoflex is approaching what I want, although it doesn't need to be that thick. Maybe having that amount of rigidity right next to the lens would be a good thing, though:




I have thought about getting a 1/4 20 tap but I would no longer be able to recommend it to others because of that DIY step up.

Also, they don't seem to make small tripod clamps aside from the one I've found on this 500mm f8.

Maybe I could find a zoom slide copier that had a tripod ring on it.


PostPosted: Thu Mar 31, 2022 4:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
eggplant wrote:

At the moment I use a tripod whose legs can fold flat, with the centre column reversed, so I can move documents freely below the camera


OK, I see.

The work you describe was pretty common daily work for most professional photographers in 1970s. There is excellent equipment for this purpose. You need the following:

1) copy stand such as the Minolta copy II stand shown here (second image in this link): https://notquiteinfocus.com/2019/09/01/film-digitizing-gotcha/

2) mirrorless camera

3) bellows with focusing rail (plus corresponding adapter to connect it to your camera)

3) lens (could be a 50mm macro lens or, if a considerably higher enlargement than 1:1 is needed) a reversed 35mm or 28mm wideangle, or a specialised Macro / Micro lens with 30mm or 20mm focal length)

S


PostPosted: Thu Mar 31, 2022 4:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
eggplant wrote:
Correct- this is exactly what I'm having to do, reproducing diagrams smaller than an SD card, which can be in the middle of an A4+ sized page.

At the moment I use a tripod whose legs can fold flat, with the centre column reversed, so I can move documents freely below the camera:



OK, this is a bit clearer now.

I think you are trying to solve the wrong problem; you can make as stiff a bellows/lens setup as you like, that splayed out tripod will not give the required rigidity for 1:1 magnification as you are seeking.

In this case a recommended setup would be to use the bellows macro stand setup shown by Stephan (or a very stiff high-quality mini tripod like the Novoflex BasicBall tripod), but placed on top of a good quality well-supported (on all 4 sides) glass sheet suspended over the document (not touching it, if sensitive). Lighting from at least two opposite sides at roughly 45 degrees or so, but do check for reflections off the glass anyway and employ a hood/shielding as appropriate. Mask off any white lettering on the front of the lens to eliminate glare/reflections, and shoot through the glass at a small aperture. A small enough aperture should compensate enough for the SA introduced by the glass thickness when shooting at 1:1.

Having said that, a good repro-stand/copy stand should allow access to the middle of up to an A3 size document even at very close focus distances. Not quite as stiff as the setup suggested above, but may be workable.

EDIT: crossed posts; I see Stephan already suggested the 2nd of my suggested options Wink
I can second the recommendation of the Minolta Copy Stand II; I own one and it offers very good flexibility and reasonable (but not superb) stiffness.

2nd EDIT: typo corrections; that too-smart-for-its-own-good autocorrect had turned some of what I said into nonsense... Rolling Eyes


PostPosted: Thu Mar 31, 2022 5:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
RokkorDoctor wrote:
eggplant wrote:
Correct- this is exactly what I'm having to do, reproducing diagrams smaller than an SD card, which can be in the middle of an A4+ sized page.

At the moment I use a tripod whose legs can fold flat, with the centre column reversed, so I can move documents freely below the camera:



OK, this is a bit clearer now.

I think you are trying to solve the wrong problem; you can make as stiff a bellows/lens setup as you like, that splayed out tripod will not give the required rigidity for 1:1 magnification as you are seeking.


What if I told you I've had good experiences with it being rigid enough, as long as the load is light? It really was a problem of heavy and large bellows.

Thats part of my point- I'm not sure heavyweight equipment is required for rigidity.

Sorry if I wasn't clear enough- the legs are locked into place like that, it's a 'notch' the tripod offers.

Still, you can push down in the centre abit, but it's not a problem if you have a small camera+lens setup, and the weight is all close to the centre of the ball head.

I was thinking you could make a support bracket that goes underneath the tripod, with a bracket ontop that is tightened/screwed down to 'brace' it.

RokkorDoctor wrote:

In this case a recommended setup would be to use the bellows macro stand setup shown by Stephan (or a very stiff high-quality mini tripod like the Novoflex BasicBall tripod), but placed on top of a good quality well-supported (on all 4 sides) glass sheet suspended over the document (not touching it, if sensitive).


The glass would have to be quite large and rigid, and given the free space I need for the documents, supported at the edges too- I don't see that ending well.

I assume the bellows copy stand would have the bottom bit removed, and it would have to somehow sit on this glass. Seems like quite a bit of DIY work.

Oh and also I'm using glass to flatten the page anyway so not sure about two pieces of it.

RokkorDoctor wrote:

Having said that, a good repro-stand/copy stand should allow access to the middle of up to an A3 size document even at very close focus distances. Not quite as stiff as the setup suggested above, but may be workable.


It feels like such a big copy stand is required because of the use of heavy bellows... sort of a spiralling problem I see when I went looking at negative scanning setups.

Last edited by eggplant on Thu Mar 31, 2022 6:21 pm; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Thu Mar 31, 2022 5:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Either way I will keep an eye out for copy stands and report back what I get up to with tripod collared lenses. I do think there is life in this tripod to do this, they just don't make the part I need.


PostPosted: Thu Mar 31, 2022 8:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
eggplant wrote:
What if I told you I've had good experiences with it being rigid enough, as long as the load is light? It really was a problem of heavy and large bellows.


Now I'm confused Wink. You are suggesting you have used this in a lightweight setup before for 1:1 magnification of a micro-SD card sized FOV, with manual focus, and it was fine? Then I'm not sure why you are not using the same lightweight setup this time? I must be missing something.
A heavier load doesn't change the rigidity of the setup, it simply lowers the resonance frequency of the setup to one which may be more noticeable/difficult to deal with when you are handling the setup. Maybe that is where the confusion lies. (which is different from tensioning the setup by the way, which does stiffen it up).

eggplant wrote:
Thats part of my point- I'm not sure heavyweight equipment is required for rigidity.


Well, generally rigidity requires either large dimensional constructions, which by implication are heavier, or premium lightweight materials such as titanium or carbon fibre composites. (Even carbon-fibre composites aren't all that stiff really, unless pre-loaded/pre-stressed; carbon fibre matting composites have some initial flex, beyond which they very suddenly stiffen up markedly).

eggplant wrote:
Sorry if I wasn't clear enough- the legs are locked into place like that, it's a 'notch' the tripod offers.


It is not the locking that matters so much, simply the flex in the legs themselves. You were talking about 1:1 magnification of something smaller than the size of an SD card.

eggplant wrote:
The glass would have to be quite large and rigid, and given the free space I need for the documents, supported at the edges too- I don't see that ending well.


No need to worry; modern toughened glass is very strong. I have 10-15 kg of lenses sitting on each of several 90cm x 20cm x 6mm thick glass shelves; no issues whatsoever and not even at half their load rating (30 kg UDL). Same for some 15+ kg brass locomotive models on a glass shelf (albeit a thicker one Wink ) In any case, it is a fairly commonly used copy setup for sensitive documents.

eggplant wrote:
I assume the bellows copy stand would have the bottom bit removed, and it would have to somehow sit on this glass. Seems like quite a bit of DIY work.


Nope, those glass or grey round inserts just come out (at least on the Minolta ones), so you can see straight through a hole in the bottom. No DIY work involved Wink

eggplant wrote:
Oh and also I'm using glass to flatten the page anyway so not sure about two pieces of it.


So, if you are allowed to flatten the page with a plate of glass, you can simply place a bellows stand/mini-tripod on top of that, no second glass sheet needed...

eggplant wrote:
It feels like such a big copy stand is required because of the use of heavy bellows... sort of a spiralling problem I see when I went looking at negative scanning setups.


I see why you might be thinking that, but the use of a big copy stand like that is not so much because of a weight issue, more one of required stiffness combined with flexibility of copy ratios. If you can use autofocus so you don't need to touch/grab the lens for focusing, you can get away with a much more lightweight/less stiff setup then when you do need to touch/grab the bellows/lens for focusing, especially for 1:1 reproduction of very small subjects. Never mind when you have other other people milling around you on wobbly floors Wink

Re. negative scanning; other than the obvious dedicated scanners, I'm always a bit puzzled why people do not simply use the ubiquitous OEM bellows + slide copy attachments. Cheap, handy, and made for that purpose precisely (at least for 35mm format). Much more stable than any copy stand setup.


PostPosted: Thu Mar 31, 2022 10:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
A thin adaptor will attach your M42 to your mirrorless but the lens wont focus because its too far back. These are designed to attach non lens accessories directly to the camera. Bellows etc.


PostPosted: Sat Apr 02, 2022 8:54 am    Post subject: Re: Short 100-200mm FL lenses with tripod collar? Reply with quote
eggplant wrote:
I still want to ask: What's the shortest lens you know that has a tripod collar?
Currently the shortest I can find is a Soligor 200mm f/3.5 Tele-Auto, although in some pictures it looks alot longer than it does (illusion?).

Not sure how long your Soligor is … my 200mm f/4.8 Tele-Xenar in DKL mount is 108mm including DKL-PK adaptor, seen here mounted on my Pentax KP.

[/img]


PostPosted: Sat Apr 02, 2022 12:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
RokkorDoctor wrote:
eggplant wrote:
What if I told you I've had good experiences with it being rigid enough, as long as the load is light? It really was a problem of heavy and large bellows.


Now I'm confused Wink. You are suggesting you have used this in a lightweight setup before for 1:1 magnification of a micro-SD card sized FOV, with manual focus, and it was fine? Then I'm not sure why you are not using the same lightweight setup this time? I must be missing something.


I tried a variety of temporary setups that were all lighter + smaller than my bellows, just to see if things improved. They did, and for a couple of photos they were fine, but over the course of many I'd need something more consistent.

RokkorDoctor wrote:

A heavier load doesn't change the rigidity of the setup, it simply lowers the resonance frequency of the setup to one which may be more noticeable/difficult to deal with when you are handling the setup. Maybe that is where the confusion lies. (which is different from tensioning the setup by the way, which does stiffen it up).

Well, generally rigidity requires either large dimensional constructions, which by implication are heavier, or premium lightweight materials such as titanium or carbon fibre composites. (Even carbon-fibre composites aren't all that stiff really, unless pre-loaded/pre-stressed; carbon fibre matting composites have some initial flex, beyond which they very suddenly stiffen up markedly).


All good to keep in mind...

RokkorDoctor wrote:
eggplant wrote:
The glass would have to be quite large and rigid, and given the free space I need for the documents, supported at the edges too- I don't see that ending well.


No need to worry; modern toughened glass is very strong. I have 10-15 kg of lenses sitting on each of several 90cm x 20cm x 6mm thick glass shelves; no issues whatsoever and not even at half their load rating (30 kg UDL). Same for some 15+ kg brass locomotive models on a glass shelf (albeit a thicker one Wink ) In any case, it is a fairly commonly used copy setup for sensitive documents.



Yeah, at 6mm thick I can see why.

RokkorDoctor wrote:

eggplant wrote:
Oh and also I'm using glass to flatten the page anyway so not sure about two pieces of it.


So, if you are allowed to flatten the page with a plate of glass, you can simply place a bellows stand/mini-tripod on top of that, no second glass sheet needed...




Of course... the penny's finally dropped Very Happy

Now- rather awkwardly- all of this advice is now not applicable to my course of action.

I determined more precisely the magnifications I will be working at- 1:1 to 2.6:1.

I found that by extension alone with my 50mm enlarger lens, I was heavily into diffraction limited territory at 'f2.8', let alone stopped down.

So I decided to follow advice read here https://www.closeuphotography.com/1x-low-cost-lens-test or here http://extreme-macro.co.uk/coupled-reverse-lens/ etc to stack the 50mm enlarger lens (Omicron 50mm f2.Cool reversed. I chose a Hoya 135mm f2.8 (not the close focus version).

Higher effective aperture = chance for higher resolution after all, and the results from handholding alone were fantastic- you could tell it was super crisp. From using the lens normally I knew to expect chromatic aberration and it was there, but less stopped down. I even reduced the magnification by taking it off the EF -> NEX adapter, and putting it on a shorter EOS -> M42 + M42 slim adapter.



Unfortunately there's not a tripod collar in sight so I will in all likelihood just have to make a support bracket and tie it down.

More importantly the magnification here is too high for general use, I need to find a 85-100mm lens but they are simply not as cheap/plentiful as 135mm lenses were.

I am interested to know if it would be worth it 'resolution' wise to go for a lens faster than f2.8 in this range. As there is no need to stop this rear lens down, there is plenty of Schneider Cinelux / ISCO Ultra-Star fast projection lenses in precisely graduated focal lengths I could use for the same price as a typical 100mm f2.8/f3.5.


kypfer wrote:
eggplant wrote:
I still want to ask: What's the shortest lens you know that has a tripod collar?
Currently the shortest I can find is a Soligor 200mm f/3.5 Tele-Auto, although in some pictures it looks alot longer than it does (illusion?).

Not sure how long your Soligor is … my 200mm f/4.8 Tele-Xenar in DKL mount is 108mm including DKL-PK adaptor, seen here mounted on my Pentax KP.



Gah, this was so close until I noticed the helicoid is behind the tripod foot. Meaning if I connected the lens and the camera to the same plate, I wouldn't be able to focus Crying or Very sad

What could be done is mounting it in reverse- therefore no more problem, although would need to work out a lens connection.


PostPosted: Sat Apr 02, 2022 3:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
eggplant wrote:



Of course... the penny's finally dropped Very Happy


Never mind, one of those days Wink

eggplant wrote:
Now- rather awkwardly- all of this advice is now not applicable to my course of action.

I determined more precisely the magnifications I will be working at- 1:1 to 2.6:1.

I found that by extension alone with my 50mm enlarger lens, I was heavily into diffraction limited territory at 'f2.8', let alone stopped down.

So I decided to follow advice read here https://www.closeuphotography.com/1x-low-cost-lens-test or here http://extreme-macro.co.uk/coupled-reverse-lens/ etc to stack the 50mm enlarger lens (Omicron 50mm f2.Cool reversed. I chose a Hoya 135mm f2.8 (not the close focus version).

Higher effective aperture = chance for higher resolution after all, and the results from handholding alone were fantastic- you could tell it was super crisp. From using the lens normally I knew to expect chromatic aberration and it was there, but less stopped down. I even reduced the magnification by taking it off the EF -> NEX adapter, and putting it on a shorter EOS -> M42 + M42 slim adapter.


That is also an often-used setup. Essentially the reversed lens is used as a highly-corrected close-up lens. Any stopping down required is done using the main lens, the reverse lens is used wide-open.

eggplant wrote:
I am interested to know if it would be worth it 'resolution' wise to go for a lens faster than f2.8 in this range. As there is no need to stop this rear lens down, there is plenty of Schneider Cinelux / ISCO Ultra-Star fast projection lenses in precisely graduated focal lengths I could use for the same price as a typical 100mm f2.8/f3.5.


You could try a faster main lens (i.e. the non-reversed one), but bear in mind that whilst you might gain resolution (and no guarantee of that at all as you will also be picking up more of the aberrations from the reversed lens), the DOF will be even thinner, which may make focusing very difficult, even with a very fine helicoid/focus rail. Just for reference, in this stacked lenses setup it is generally advised to stop down the main lens quite a bit. Going beyond f/11 on APS-C may give you diffraction issues.

At least the detail you are trying to resolve is still easily doable with visible light, no electron microscope required yet Wink


PostPosted: Sat Apr 02, 2022 3:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
RokkorDoctor wrote:
eggplant wrote:

https://www.closeuphotography.com/1x-low-cost-lens-test or here http://extreme-macro.co.uk/coupled-reverse-lens/ etc to stack the 50mm enlarger lens (Omicron 50mm f2.Cool reversed. I chose a Hoya 135mm f2.8 (not the close focus version).

Higher effective aperture = chance for higher resolution after all, and the results from handholding alone were fantastic- you could tell it was super crisp. From using the lens normally I knew to expect chromatic aberration and it was there, but less stopped down. I even reduced the magnification by taking it off the EF -> NEX adapter, and putting it on a shorter EOS -> M42 + M42 slim adapter.

That is also an often-used setup. Essentially the reversed lens is used as a highly-corrected close-up lens. Any stopping down required is done using the main lens, the reverse lens is used wide-open.


Have you got this the wrong way round? Stopping down the rear lens produces vignetting past f/4, whereas I can stop down the front, reversed lens with no problem.

What another website says:

"Stopping Down
You will find that you get higher image quality by stopping down the front lens (the reversed one) and leaving the other one wide open (to act as a tube 'gathering' lens).

If you use the non-reversed lens aperture rather than the reversed one it will let through a lot of optical aberrations because it's far away from the 'optical centre' of the combined lens. The centre of the combined lens is actually still for all intents and purposes physically the centre of the reversed lens - the non-reversed lens is just acting as a tube lens. You start getting quite nasty and strange image aberrations when you move the aperture away from the optical centre, so use the front (reversed) one for aperture alterations and just leave the other one wide open. Read more at http://extreme-macro.co.uk/coupled-reverse-lens/#ixzz4c5n0ZHnx%22#ixzz4c5n0ZHnx"


PostPosted: Sat Apr 02, 2022 3:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
eggplant wrote:
RokkorDoctor wrote:
eggplant wrote:

https://www.closeuphotography.com/1x-low-cost-lens-test or here http://extreme-macro.co.uk/coupled-reverse-lens/ etc to stack the 50mm enlarger lens (Omicron 50mm f2.Cool reversed. I chose a Hoya 135mm f2.8 (not the close focus version).

Higher effective aperture = chance for higher resolution after all, and the results from handholding alone were fantastic- you could tell it was super crisp. From using the lens normally I knew to expect chromatic aberration and it was there, but less stopped down. I even reduced the magnification by taking it off the EF -> NEX adapter, and putting it on a shorter EOS -> M42 + M42 slim adapter.

That is also an often-used setup. Essentially the reversed lens is used as a highly-corrected close-up lens. Any stopping down required is done using the main lens, the reverse lens is used wide-open.


Have you got this the wrong way round? Stopping down the rear lens produces vignetting past f/4, whereas I can stop down the front, reversed lens with no problem.

What another website says:

"Stopping Down
You will find that you get higher image quality by stopping down the front lens (the reversed one) and leaving the other one wide open (to act as a tube 'gathering' lens).

If you use the non-reversed lens aperture rather than the reversed one it will let through a lot of optical aberrations because it's far away from the 'optical centre' of the combined lens. The centre of the combined lens is actually still for all intents and purposes physically the centre of the reversed lens - the non-reversed lens is just acting as a tube lens. You start getting quite nasty and strange image aberrations when you move the aperture away from the optical centre, so use the front (reversed) one for aperture alterations and just leave the other one wide open. Read more at http://extreme-macro.co.uk/coupled-reverse-lens/#ixzz4c5n0ZHnx%22#ixzz4c5n0ZHnx"


Interesting; that is precisely the opposite of the advice I have read in one of my macro books Rolling Eyes

I guess there is only one way to find out; try which works best!. I'm struggling to get my head around why stopping down the non-reversed lens would cause vignetting though...

I'll have to pick one of these stacking connectors one of these days and do some experiments myself!


EDIT: consensus in this thread on dpreview seems to be to leave the reversed lens wide-open, but stop down the main lens, which corresponds with what my understanding was:

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/838986

Perhaps the usual setup is to use a slow main lens, but use a fast reversed lens...
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Goto page 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2